You are here

The rude Pakistani's power play won't play in Trumpland

Speaking at the DNC on July 28, 2016, Khizr Khan holds up a paperback U.S. Constitution that he pulled out of his vest pocket to offer to Donald Trump, while his wife looks on.

By Carolyn Yeager

WHAT WE HAVE HERE ARE PAKISTANI IMMIGRANTS trying to dictate to Americans what is moral and what is not, and attack us based on our own beliefs, achievements and traditions! It's fine to honor their war hero son Humayun Khan, but they themselves are nothing special and cannot be set up as moral arbiters for our nation. Their son is a hero, they are not.

We're witnessing Political Correctness gone wild. We better get used to non-politically correct speech because this is one of the benefits that comes with Donald Trump. It always clears the air, doesn't it?

Trump met rudeness with bluntness. As he has said so many times, he didn't start it. He just answered it. Here is what happened.

Khizr Khan came to America in 1980 from Pakistan, with a wife and two sons, to study at Harvard University. He managed to stay and is currently age 65, a lawyer, and resides in Virginia with his wife and two grown surviving sons. He was invited to speak before the Democratic National Convention on July 28, 2016 in support of Hillary Clinton. He decided (or it was decided for him) to expand his remarks to attack Donald Trump, the Republican nominee. He said:

“Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership.

“Donald Trump, you’re asking Americans to trust you with their future. Let me ask you, ‘Have you even read the United States Constitution?’ I will gladly lend you my copy”

as he pulled a paperback version out of his jacket pocket and held it in front of him. He then went even further and asked if Donald Trump had ever visited Arlington National Cemetery where “patriots” of “all faiths, genders and ethnicities” are buried. “You have sacrificed nothing and no one,” he cried, as his deceased son's gigantic portrait stared out from the screen behind him.

This was certainly an unnecessarily vicious attack on Donald Trump, clearly out of vindictiveness at Trump's policy position of excluding Muslim immigration from countries engaged in anti-Western terrorism. It also makes clear that Mr. Khan puts the welfare of Muslims ahead of the welfare of Americans, and anyone with half a brain can figure that out.

I also want to make the point that this man is a lawyer, a professional. As such, he is using his son's death in Iraq in 2004, although it was 12 years ago, to give himself the status he would never have without that death. So he is, as they say, trading on his son's death in a blatant attempt to determine the outcome of an American election! An outcome that favors Muslim immigration from the middle east! This is not American patriotism!!

Media invents “comparison” idea of sacrifices

Trump sent out only two tweets about Khan's speech, both early Sunday morning:

Captain Khan, killed 12 years ago, was a hero, but this is about RADICAL ISLAMIC TERROR and the weakness of our "leaders" to eradicate it!

I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!

In a pre-taped interview Trump gave to ABC News' George Stephanopoulos (Friday or Saturday?) that aired Sunday, Trump was asked what he had to say to Khan's charge that he had never sacrificed anything for his country. Trump responded with things he believed were sacrifices he made. The media then characterized what he said as comparing his sacrifices to Khan's which was not true, just the usual Trump-bashing they engage in. Truth be damned! I guess he was supposed to say he had made no sacrifices at all and then they could ridicule that.

However, Trump did make a mistake by putting any attention at all on Mrs. Khan. He pointed out she remained silent at the DNC, and caught himself in a trap of his own making by using her silence to make a point about the role of women in Islam. Big mistake! Though you never know how Trump's “mistakes” will turn out, since when Mrs. Khan responded, she revealed extreme weakness by admitting that even after 12 years, she cannot see a picture, or hear her son spoken about, without “coming apart” emotionally. Mr. Khan gets extremely emotional too. This, I would submit, is the quality in middle-easterners that makes their nations so unstable, enabling (and maybe requiring) dictatorial rule, and leads so many into religious jihadism. Perhpas it is also why Islam is a religion that works for them, that keeps them calm and accepting of tyrants and corruption. But Westerners are not in need of such a religion and it is not suitable for the Occident.

Khan then characterized Trump's response to Stephanapoulos as “an attack” on his wife and said they were “typical of a person without a soul.” Pretty strong, extremist language.

Kid-glove treatment encourages Khan to keep punching

The response of the television talking heads and most politicians is predictable—Khan, as a Gold Star father is off-limits for any rebuke. Everyone must understand his pain and respect it; he can say whatever he wants. Therefore, Khan is now saying that he will continue to speak out against Trump throughout the campaign, and the media will no doubt give him the airtime. Although it's possible it could backfire on him and the Dems, as I intimated in the beginning, because many will see him as I do – as a foreigner who thinks he knows more about America than those who have been here for generations – and what's more, he's going to keep on lecturing us. No one wants that.

And, as if to prove that point, Khan is now going after the entire Republican party! This “righteous Muslim” is on a tear, dictating to Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan that they have a “moral obligation” to speak out against their own party's standard bearer! He says the same to every Republican running for office this year. Going beyond the pale for an immigrant, he has now publicly called Trump a “black soul” who is “totally unfit for the leadership” of the USA and added Trump lacks a “moral compass and empathy.”

I guess he doesn't realize he is not only insulting Trump, but every person who likes and supports Trump, which is currently about 45% of the American population. His message is “I am a better American than you, I have given more, I better understand the American Constitution” (which democrats have never cared about, and even Geo.W. Bush called “only a piece of paper”), which gives him the right to abuse our nominee. Khan accuses Trump of being abusive—he should apply the same yardstick to himself.

This is our country too. This is not only Donald Trump’s country. He is an ignorant, divisive manipulator, and through my message I wish to convey to him and to all Muslim Americans: This is our country too.”

He uses the term Muslim-American. How does that fit with sound thinking? Do we call people Christian-Americans, or Buddhist-Americans? No, we call people by their race or ethnicity, not their religion! Jewish-American is used because Jew is both a race and religion. But Muslim's come from many nations that argue and fight among themselves. Trump has changed his ban to nations and territories that are rife with terrorist activity, not to Muslims overall. So Khan is mischaracterizing Donald Trump's policy which is disgraceful enough in itself because Donald Trump is a quintessential American who embodies the essence of “freedom and opportunity” that people like the Khans say they want for themselves. Donald Trump is a good and honest man but I can't say the same for Khizr Khan.

Category

Comments

I think that when the Democrats decided who their speakers would be, they failed to take account of the impression that they would make on White Americans -- with whom they are grossly out of step. Having a Muslim woman in foreign garb on their podium is not going to help them.

From that second link of your comment it appears that Khan is a typical Muslim. Far from being an innocent immigrant, devoted to the Constitution and aggrieved by the death of his son who fell "defending America", Khan is a Muslim supremacist, bent on introducing sharia into America by stealth and hoping to take America over by mass Muslim immigration. This is the typical Muslim attitude.

I find Khan's claim that he "sacrificed" rather pretentious, since nobody signs up in the US military expecting to be killed. It's a little bit like saying that the victims of an airplane-crash sacrificed their lives for aviation.
Khan Senior implied that Arlington Cemetery was chock-full of Muslim war-dead. ABC News, however, says that only 14 Muslims in the US military were KIA in the decade after 9-11. That's statistically insignificant, since the total American KIA figure is in the thousands.

Even the number of civilian news-media people killed in Iraq dwarfs the number of Muslims in US uniform killed.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. A sacrifice is something you give voluntarily and I doubt it was Mr. and Mrs. Khan's idea their son join the military. It was his wish and his sacrifice. Of course, a nation honors the families of its heroes and both Khans suffered a great loss, but not a sacrifice.

Then Khan saying you find all ethnicities and religions at Arlington Cemetery is really not exactly true because the proportion sure isn't equal. It's the mantra of multiculturism. Khan is surely a lobbyist for Muslim immigration to this country, as Franklin said, not just a grieving father. I hope there will be further investigation of him.

From an NBC News article asking people at a Trump rally in Ohio about the Khan controversy:

But in the midst of multiple controversies, Trump's supporters remained, as usual, mostly undeterred in their loyalty. Judy Dellevonne of Springfield, OH told NBC when asked about the Khan controversy that she thinks "the news blows everything he does out of proportion and doesn't report very accurately on him sometimes."

Twenty-two-year-old Ohio State University Students, Skylar Alexander and Andy DeVita, echoed the sentiment saying they thought the Khan controversy is largely fueled by the media. "I think it's just where we direct our attention and what's actually worth getting media coverage," Alexander told NBC before the rally. Others in attendance sought to discredit the Kahns, one man telling NBC "the news media lies constantly."

"I don't have any objections to what he's said so far," Dellevonne said, firm in her support.

My feeling is Trump will win and probably in a landslide. I do not think Khan is helping Muslims. If I was a Muslim and my concern was for all Muslims, I would vote for Trump. The thing I don't see in this article by Carolyn is the fact that the war between Islam (in the form of terrorists) and the west, led by the US, is completely the fault of the US. It wasn't Muslims poking their noses into the USA's business that started this war. As usual, it was the US getting involved in something thousands of miles from the country.

We can start with the US recognizing Israel immediately after the Jews stole Palestinian land in 1948. Then, beginning in 1967 the Arabs arch-enemy Israel began receiving over 3 billion dollars annually from the US, becoming the number one recipient of American foreign aid every year since 1967. In 1973 another war broke out between the Jews and Arabs and Israel was in danger of being pushed into the sea. Unfortunately that didn't happen. The US intervened on Israel's side and possibly saved their hide. Does anyone remember the long gas lines in 1973 and gas doubling in price to 50 cents per gallon? That was because OPEC, led by Arab countries, objected to the US intervening against the Arabs in the war and embargoed the west. In 1979 the US made a big to do when Iran overthrew the Shah that the US helped put in place 26 years earlier when they overthrew the Iranian gov't with spies in the US embassy, the exact place where 50 Americans were held so they couldn't repeat the act in 1979. In the 1980's Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein (film can be seen on youtube), shook Saddam's hand and made arrangements to help Saddam in his war against Iran. In 1988 the US deliberately shot down an Iranian civillian airline killing over three hundred people. Then President Bush refused to apologize, saying the US doens't apologize to anyone. In 1991 the US attaced Iraq. Because Americans love Arabs so much, or so was claimed at this moment, they wanted to help Kuwait. So they attacked Iraq, whose leader Rumsfeld met and helped only eight years earlier, stabbing their fomer ally in the back. The first thing Saddam did in the 1991 war after being attacked was launch missiles at Israel, knowing the real reason his country was attacked. In 2001, if the official 911 story is to be believed, the Arabs finally struck back at the US. In 2003 the US used this as an excuse to attack Iraq and have its leader and their former ally brutally murdered. They blew up Afghanistam again. The US destroyed Libya and had its leader murdered and now the US is helping terrorists in an attempt to overthrow Syria's leader Assad. None of this has helped the US or Europe. It has only helped Israel and has been a disaster for Europe with a tidal wave of terrorists and refugees arriving on its shores. The US is fully responsible for any terrorism Americans suffer under.

When you have the full force of the media behind you, it doesn’t require much courage to shoot your big mouth off with such audacity. Khan is an immigrant to the US, complaining the US won’t let more of his people into the country when there is essentially a state of war between the US and the west against Muslim countries. Could anyone imagine a Frenchmen, American, Englishman or someone else going to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic country and criticizing the country for not allowing their people into that country? Of course not. Only western, white populated countries invite millions of immigrants into their countries.

Now, if Mr. Khan had any real courage he would criticize the murderous policies of the Jewish dominated USA that has destroyed much of the middle east, killed millions of innocents, caused a humanitarian disaster flooding Europe with immigrants as well as terrorists and benefitted only one country – Israel. But if Mr. Khan criticized this, the media would give him no coverage and you most likely would have never heard of him. And if he somehow got into the media and criticized Jews for their role in the mass murder of Muslims, he wouldn’t be a hero to the Jew media, but an enemy and treated as such with the label “anti-Semite” affixed to him.

So the coward Mr. Khan supports the mass murderer Clinton who serves the Jews and presumably to support Muslim immigration to the US, while saying nothing about the mass murder carried out under her and other American leaders. I don’t understand Muslims or Arabs at all. They are either completely disorganized or stupid. They speak out, seemingly in solidarity with Islam on the one hand, while supporting a mass murderer of Muslims on the other. Not that Trump is perfect. Far from it. But he opposes the terrorists in Syria and supports the right of Syrians to keep their elected leader Assad and he appears far less likely to continue the policy to murder masses of Muslims that has been US policy up until now, even after Obama was given a Nobel Prize indicating he would stop it.

If Hillary is elected, it is a very good bet there will be many more deaths in the middle east. With Trump there is a chance some sanity will prevail in American foreign policy.

At the outset let it be said unequivocally that this entire "Captain Khan Affair" is manufactured outrage and that it will fade away like the Mexican Judge, Juan McCaine POW, and "New Jersey Muslims dancing in the streets 9/11" outrages before it. Further, if Trump sticks to his guns and refuses to grovel, apologize and ass kiss---it will bring in thousands and thousands of new voters.

The controlled press/media is still beating the drum of inclusion and multiculturalism, advising Trump that he must appeal to La teen ohs and Muhammadans in order to win---but the very opposite is true. He must ignore them, because he will NEVER gain any traction with the gibsmedat population.

I do, of course, feel compassion for the Khans in the loss of their son--- but I'm also sickened they used his corpse for political purposes, and very likely to promote elder Khan's green card business. Mr. Khan, In the name of decency and honour, and the memory of your son, please leave the stage; stop giving these unseemly, hateful interviews.

Khan waves a pamphlet copy of the US Constitution and accuses Trump of "ignorance" of its contents, but what exactly is Khan waving about? The only possible items would be "no establishment" and "no religious tests". How do these translate into unlimited Muhammadan immigration? Khan should read a bit of US history; in the 19th Century polygamists were not allowed to enter the country. Ditto Chinese tongs and djoosh radicals.

A soldier was killed 12 years ago and his parents claim the right to come on to the national stage and defame a good man. That is called free speech. This is unconscionable, to use the soldier's death to make a political statement and then to silence any objection by claiming to be a grieving family. (There is a time for grieving.) Is this what their son would have wanted? They claim the right of free speech and then deny any response because they are grieving. Let all the parents and families of those buried at Arlington rise up in protest that their lives didn't matter. Only the Muslim lives matter. But the issue here is vetting and how to do it. Vetting has nothing to do with whether or not you are a Muslim or a Irishman, but whether or not you are a terrorist. Muslims should rise up in support of stopping terrorists from doing the murder. That is the issue, because terrorists are not coming here seeking the American way of life. Mr. Khan doesn't seem to know anything about Islam, either. Free speech is allowed in America that is true. But someday when Islam becomes the majority the law will be different. That is the hope of Islam, that all will submit to ALLAH.